lcd tv as a monitor

[blaze15301]

hi everyone. i am looking into buying some new monitor but i was looking at some of the prices. and for 200 i can get a decent sized lcd tv. but im not sure how well that will work. so comments are welcome. im more into gaming and 3d models. so if you know some one or you yourself is using a tv let me know the pros and cons of it.

[x88x]

I have seen people do this a lot, and it does work. The thing you have to keep in mind is, which is more important to you: pixel pitch (ie, how sharp is your display; how much can you fit in a given area) and resolution or surface area.

I would also take a look at the $200 TVs and find out what resolution they can actually do. Most of the sub-$600 TVs I've seen in any size have been 1366x768 or 720p...neither of which I would want to have on a screen larger than, say, 12".

[Konrad]

I've never done it and I'm not much of an audio/video kinda guy.

But I think that these days there is little difference anyhow ... the TV just contains TV tuner stuff and coax-style cable connectors. A TV will almost always have integrated audio capabilities, many monitors don't. You can even get that stuff built into your computer's graphics card, the line seems quite blurry. I suspect that TVs cost a little more than equivalent monitors because of their extra tuner electronics.

I expect that the display resolutions matter; not just the best resolution but all the possible modes it can support (just in case your computer and display don't match at the highest specs). Screen refresh rate might be an issue, but I doubt it. Avoid TVs which show interlaced resolutions. Remember, Interlaced = cheap, non-Interlaced (what they call Progressive these days) = non-cheap. You'll rarely see TVs which offer better resolution than 1920x1080p (p = non-interlaced), but some many monitors are capable of higher.

Of course the TV has to have all the usual signal ports that your monitor would have, at least one of which has to be compatible with your computer. Digital cables are always better than analog for LCDs ... HDMI is best though not always necessary unless perhaps you play Blu-ray discs on your computer.

I could be wrong. I haven't watched TV for years, poisons the mind.

[x88x]

Avoid TVs which show interlaced resolutions. Remember, Interlaced = cheap, non-Interlaced (what they call Progressive these days) = non-cheap.
Not true. Any progressive scan LCD TV can display interlaced signals. It's not that one is cheap and the other isn't, they're different technologies designed to display different signals. Interlaced is an old technology, granted, and doesn't show as clear a picture as progressive scan, but just because a TV can display an interlaced signal does not mean that it is crap. I think the root of the stigma of interlaced signals recently is the rash of TVs that advertise a max display of 1080i, and people think that the TV should be able to display 1080p. Computers output progressive scan signals anyways, so you can just ignore the interlaced stats.



HDMI is best
It depends what you're sending to the TV. the video portion of HDMI and DVI-D are identical, so if you're just sending video it doesn't matter which. That being said, on TVs it's much more common to see HDMI...just pointing out that if you're not sending audio the only way that HDMI is superior to DVI is the smaller plug size.

[dr.walrus]

I have seen people do this a lot, and it does work. The thing you have to keep in mind is, which is more important to you: pixel pitch (ie, how sharp is your display; how much can you fit in a given area) and resolution or surface area.

I would also take a look at the $200 TVs and find out what resolution they can actually do. Most of the sub-$600 TVs I've seen in any size have been 1366x768 or 720p...neither of which I would want to have on a screen larger than, say, 12".

this

[Konrad]

Not true. Any progressive scan LCD TV can display interlaced signals. It's not that one is cheap and the other isn't, they're different technologies designed to display different signals. Interlaced is an old technology, granted, and doesn't show as clear a picture as progressive scan, but just because a TV can display an interlaced signal does not mean that it is crap. I think the root of the stigma of interlaced signals recently is the rash of TVs that advertise a max display of 1080i, and people think that the TV should be able to display 1080p. Computers output progressive scan signals anyways, so you can just ignore the interlaced stats.
I've always thought of interlacing as a way to squeeze higher resolutions out of less sophisticated (slower) scanning circuitry. Agreed, interlacing does not at all equate with crap, but a unit capable of progressive scanning at the same resolution would seem to be superior ... or so I thought. At least on analog or tube displays, where interlacing causes noticeable (and unpleasant) "flicker" for many people. I'm not sure if it even applies to digital panels, since screen refresh is handled in a less "visible" way. Agreed, it shouldn't even be a consideration with digital computer signals.

HDMI is just DVI+audio on the same connector? Learn somethin' new every day. So when you use HDMI to connect your graphics card to your (audio-capable) monitor/TV, and you have a discrete audio card (or mobo integrated audio) ... which computer component determines the audio quality?

You obviously know more than I; like I said, I'm not an audio/video guy, I just get it working (easy enough to do with today's idiot-proof connectors) and leave it at that.

[dr.walrus]

a unit capable of progressive scanning at the same resolution would seem to be superior ... or so I thought.

Yep


it shouldn't even be a consideration with digital computer signals.

Yeah your computer doesn't output an interlaced signal, so just ignore the interlaced resolution


HDMI is just DVI+audio on the same connector? Learn somethin' new every day. So when you use HDMI to connect your graphics card to your (audio-capable) monitor/TV, and you have a discrete audio card (or mobo integrated audio) ... which computer component determines the audio quality?

Your sound card, unless you use a hdmi > dvi + sound cable - but that's useless unless you have an digital > analog decoder. Which is why people don't do this, and leave their TV's own d>a decoder

It depends what you're sending to the TV. the video portion of HDMI and DVI-D are identical, so if you're just sending video it doesn't matter which. That being said, on TVs it's much more common to see HDMI...just pointing out that if you're not sending audio the only way that HDMI is superior to DVI is the smaller plug size.
It is worth noting that monitors accepting DVI are not all HDCP compatible, so SOME cheap (and escpecially older) dvi monitors are not compatible with modern DVD players etc.

However, that is an aside because that is the opposite scenario to this discussion; a monitor being used as a TV rather than a TV being used as a monitor.



My own opinion is this. Let how you plan to use the display decide. Primarily using it as a TV? The built in tuner, wide range of inputs, size (bear in mind how far you will be from it) and remote control will make it more suitable. Primarily using it as a computer? 16:9 screens aren't great for web browsing, pixel density (pitch) is lower, and you don't want the built in speakers (extra size), and you can make do with only two inputs.

To me, I would make the decision on how much time you'd spend in an office chair in front of it compared to the amount of time you're going to spend on a couch. So to speak.

If you want to buy a TV as a monitor just to save money, don't. 1) it's not cheaper (you can get a half decent viewsonic 22" 1600*1050 for £80 in the UK) and 2) a cheap tv that size will be 720p. Crippling.
Edit: unless you're looking at over 24". Then you gotta ask why you need a monitor that big. You should just be using two.

[mDust]

I used to connect my PC to my 56" 1080p DLP until bad caps caused funky issues and power-cycling when anything was plugged into the HDMI ports on the TV. I just recently soldered in new caps and it's working fine now, so as soon as I get a new graphics card I'll be gaming on it again.

For HDTVs, the optimum viewing distance is 1.5-2 x the diagonal of the screen. I sit about 10 feet from my TV...far enough to not see any pixelation and close enough to not lose any detail on the screen. If you're going to throw a 20-30" TV on your desk and sit in an office chair, you're probably sitting too close to it and the whole experience will be sub-par. Definitely don't try to hook your computer up to a 720i/p TV...I've seen it done and it looks bad.

If you're looking for a big screen, I'd definitely give two thumbs up. Look for TVs that have HDMI/DVI or even DisplayPort inputs. If it's only got a VGA input, I'd consider passing on it. Your computer outputs digital signals which would then be converted to analog to travel through the VGA cable and then the TV has to reconvert the signal back to digital again...this is dumb and introduces several problems. Many graphics cards don't even have a VGA out anyway. Good riddance.

I'm not sure what size of an investment you're considering, but surround sound adds a ton to the experience...I have HDMI to the TV for video and digital co-ax to a home-theater system for 5.1 surround. There's nothing like hearing footsteps behind you as you turnaround and shoot a sneaky life-size, knife-wielding enemy between the eyes.:devious: Ahhhhh....just thinking about it now...

Any specific questions?

[dr.walrus]

If it's only got a VGA input, I'd consider passing on it.

No such thing as a tv with only vga input

[mDust]

No such thing as a tv with only vga input

Yeah, actually I don't know what I was thinking. I really don't.:think:

[BuzzKillington]

I use a 26" lcd tv that runs at 1900x1200 with a 5ms refresh rate I believe... I wouldn't have it any other way. When I'm bored with the computer, flip to tv.. when I'm bored with tv... flip the 360. If you have a smaller backup monitor, even better; You can browse the web during commercials.

You may not have the dot pitch of a gaming monitor but for the price/size ratio, it can't be beat.

[dr.walrus]

I use a 26" lcd tv that runs at 1900x1200 with a 5ms refresh rate I believe... I wouldn't have it any other way. When I'm bored with the computer, flip to tv.. when I'm bored with tv... flip the 360. If you have a smaller backup monitor, even better; You can browse the web during commercials.

You may not have the dot pitch of a gaming monitor but for the price/size ratio, it can't be beat.

Really, a TV with that res? What is it?

I wouldn't mind a 24 inch tv to go with my 2 24 inch monitors - would be nice to have the TV functionality but all I'm missing right now is a TV tuner and a remote, and I wouldn't do the swap unless I found a perfect match

[x88x]

would be nice to have the TV functionality but all I'm missing right now is a TV tuner and a remote, and I wouldn't do the swap unless I found a perfect match

Personally I would rather go the route of getting a TV tuner card for my computer and just having TV displayed on one of my monitors, instead of having to fully dedicate one display (and always the same display) to TV if I wanted to watch anything.

[dr.walrus]

Personally I would rather go the route of getting a TV tuner card for my computer and just having TV displayed on one of my monitors, instead of having to fully dedicate one display (and always the same display) to TV if I wanted to watch anything.
see, it'd be the built in tuner that got me, but you know as well as I I'm looking for something that doesn't exist

[Konrad]

This sorta seems like the right place to ask ... what should I look for in a TV tuner card? (In addition to the usual considerations in a GPU, of course.) Would a PCI (not PCIe) version be good enough?

[x88x]

Would a PCI (not PCIe) version be good enough?

If it's the only thing on your PCI bus it should be fine (after all, it has a capacity of 133MBps), but if there are several other things on your PCI bus, I would look into a PCIe one.